Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Further Reflections on <strong>Atheism</strong> 213<br />
us who are aware of the slipperiness of philosophical argument <strong>and</strong> of how<br />
dependent it is on various background assumptions might put Prob(h) as<br />
perhaps low but not zero or infinitesimal. Moreover the argument from evil<br />
would not worry a theist who thought that God was not good or was perhaps<br />
even malicious. She might worship God because of the power she attributes<br />
to God, not because of attributing goodness to God. Prima facie at least a<br />
Calvinist ought to be such a theologian. To divide the population into sheep<br />
<strong>and</strong> goats <strong>and</strong> to send the goats to hell is surely to be malicious. The notion<br />
that salvation is by grace, not by works, connects with this apparently arbitrary<br />
division into sheep <strong>and</strong> goats. In passing, even if a libertarian theory of<br />
free will were viable (which I myself would deny), this would not justify the<br />
division into sheep <strong>and</strong> goats.<br />
There is a further consideration which might lead us to put Prob(e/h) as<br />
itself low. Why should we suppose that God should be specially interested in<br />
life or even consciousness? This seems to be an anthropic or at least biocentric<br />
attitude. It may be that with the development of neuroscience, consciousness<br />
will lose its aura of mystery. In any case a God as envisaged by John Leslie as<br />
an ethical principle could hardly be conscious. (It is true that in his latest<br />
book, Infinite Minds, Leslie argues for a pantheism which is something of<br />
a hybrid between Berkeley <strong>and</strong> Spinoza. 23 )<br />
It should be noted that usually, <strong>and</strong> certainly here, Bayes’ theorem should<br />
be construed as concerned with subjective probabilities. An advantage of<br />
repeated use (i.e. with different evidence) of the theorem is that it will lead<br />
to two or more people to converge on something like an objective probability<br />
(or at least consensus) even though they start from different subjective probabilities.<br />
However, repeated use of the theorem does not seem to be possible<br />
when we are dealing with a question about God <strong>and</strong> the universe.<br />
8 Biological Considerations<br />
Physicists are on the whole more likely to be drawn to theism than biologists,<br />
especially those who have a biochemical bent <strong>and</strong> are hard-boiled materialists<br />
with a mechanistic view of life <strong>and</strong> mind. An exception, who has drawn some<br />
attention though without making much impression on orthodox evolutionists,<br />
is M.J. Behe who actually argues from biological considerations to the<br />
necessity for belief in divine intervention in the evolutionary process, <strong>and</strong> so<br />
would support John <strong>Haldane</strong>’s use of biological considerations in the present<br />
volume. 24<br />
According to Behe, there has been too easy an acceptance of neo-<br />
Darwinism. In a sense he has revived an argument of Paley’s type such as<br />
that of the watch. If one was walking over a moor <strong>and</strong> found a watch, one